Reply ↓
SA
July 3, 2019 at 05:11
Paul
Not so much OT as OTT. We are all aware of the manipulations of Google but what you get reading Natural news and Organics is a series of articles each referencing each others’ articles or their own articles with allegations based on zero evidence just statements. It is this sort of thing that gives adversaries a chance to label people as conspiracy theorists. And to lump weed killers with vaccines and chemotherapy is just plain ignorant. Please do not take these hoax websites at face value be more critical and seek independent evidence and find out a bit more about how vaccines have transformed the prevention of many diseases and how chemotherapy, a crude first step in treating cancers, is evolving.
Anyway thanks for reminding us not to consult these two websites in future.

Reply ↓
Paul Barbara
July 3, 2019 at 12:04
@ SA July 3, 2019 at 05:11
As you are aware this is not the place to argue vaccinations etc. Some articles in Natural News I agree with, others I don’t. The point is, blanket banning because the site questions ‘Official Narratives’ is blatant censorship, and to be deplored.
This site has frequently been attacked by ‘forces’ in support of the PTB; would you be happy if Craig’s alternative to official ‘narratives’ was also censored?

Reply ↓
SA
July 3, 2019 at 16:14
As far as I know Craig never publishes ‘fake news’. These sites do and are misleading and dangerous and there is no loss if they are censored in my opinion.

Reply ↓
Paul Barbara
July 3, 2019 at 16:59
@ SA July 3, 2019 at 05:11
‘… And to lump weed killers with vaccines and chemotherapy is just plain ignorant…’
Perhaps it is you that needs to watch where you get your info from – there are a slew of reports about Glyphosate being found in vaccines – are they all fake news?
‘Glyphosate Found in Childhood Vaccines’: https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/glyphosate-found-childhood-vaccines
‘…The ever-present narrative that vaccines are perfectly safe is falling apart after testing shows that many childhood vaccines contain the carcinogenic chemical glyphosate

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s flagship herbicide Roundup and hundreds of other herbicides, has been found in vaccines. Moms Across America received preliminary screening results from Microbe Inotech Laboratories Inc. of St. Louis, Missouri, which showed:

MMR II (Merk) vaccine had 2.671 parts per billion (ppb) of glyphosate
DTap Adacel (Sanofi Pasteur) vaccine had 0.123 ppb of glyphosate
Influenza Fluvirin (Novaris) 0.331 ppb of glyphosate
HepB Energix-B (Glaxo Smith Kline) 0.325 ppb of glyphosate
Pneumonoccal Vax Polyvalent Pneumovax 23 (Merk) had 0.107 ppb of glyphosate
The MMR II vaccine had levels up to 25 times higher than the other vaccines. Following our test, additional independent tests have confirmed these findings at or above the same levels. The tests were conducted using the ELISA method….’
Cast off your blinkers.

Reply ↓
Kempe
July 3, 2019 at 07:11
Good for Google and about time. It’s taken Facebook long enough to take down anti-vax sites and those pushing fake cancer cures.

Reply ↓
nevermind
July 3, 2019 at 11:27
Can you name any of the fake sites,Kempe, so we can stop wasting our time on them? Denial of facts do not equate with superior knowledge,imho.
The derision of natural drugs that have been used for thousands of years and, shown drastically in current days, can help people, especially young children from epilepsy, reducing 200 tremors/day to almost none, without ever been scientifically assessed, and what was a large study in1947, coming out with the same conclusion,i.e. that this natural drug helps, was suppressed and buried.

They knew this for 5 decades, but still send thousands to prison, declared them deranged criminals, and much more. Now big pharma wants to lay their hands and control a natural drug everyone has been growing for themselves for decades.

Add to this, two Tory’s are growing 40 acres under police protection and with full knowledge of the cartel/Home office who sanctioned this cutting edge business for the Adkins family, whilst busting small scale growers nationwide.

Thats is only one example, but a very big one, and the commercialisation of this drug in this country, will for years be tinged with the smell of corrupt self serving Tories who kowtow to big pharma and their,often, obsessive pricing.
looking forward to hear your fake cancer story.

Reply ↓
SA
July 3, 2019 at 16:19
I agree mostly with what you say but these are two separate problems. One is that Big Pharma is out to make big money, mostly by charging a lot for drugs developed by others and this sharp practice must be condemned and regulated. But this does not mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Big pharma also produce highly effective vaccines and cancer treatments and without this major expansion there would not n=be as much progress in prevention and treatment of many diseases.

Reply ↓
Kempe
July 3, 2019 at 17:24
I suggest you do a quick search for MMS, Miracle Mineral Solution, on the search engine of your choice. Here’s a quick overview:-

There were quite a number of sites on Facebook promoting this dangerous rubbish which Facebook initially refused to take down as they “didn’t violate Facebook’s terms and conditions” ie they were making money out of them.

Desperate parents were encouraged to give their sick children enemas (which should only be done with medical supervision) of what is essentially industrial bleach on the promise that it would cure cancer, AIDS, autism; you name it. The result is really a lot physical and mental harm to the child.

Reply ↓
Paul Barbara
July 3, 2019 at 12:06
@ Kempe July 3, 2019 at 07:11
As long as they don’t censor the trolls…

Reply ↓
Paul Barbara
July 3, 2019 at 17:06
@ Kempe July 3, 2019 at 07:11
I suggest you too read my comment to SA @ Paul Barbara July 3, 2019 at 16:59
So if you had your way, this independently sought testing by a Mothers Health site would be censored?
Why the hell didn’t the Big Pharma Vaccine producers check this out? Because they are not liable for vaccine damages, due to a government protective of ‘Big Donors’.

Reply ↓
Kempe
July 3, 2019 at 17:34
Yes Moms Across America. Claims found to be untrue.

Paul Barbara
July 4, 2019 at 00:47
@ Kempeb July 3, 2019 at 17:34
No, not UNTRUE, the silly bollo^^s say: ..’A closer look at the science shows that what MAAMs and Samsel describe is a very unlikely scenario..’ Where is the science in that?
And similar prats say Glyphosate doesn’t effect humans, whereas it is an incontrovertible fact that it affects human gut bacteria, extremely important in human health and it’s immune system.
Anyhow, thanks for at least trying to respond – you normally just ignore stuff you cannot respond to.
And obviously, Moms Across America must, perforce, be a fake organisation. Why on earth should mothers in America give a truppeny f^ck about their kids?
But you, obviously, appear to!

Reply ↓
N_
July 3, 2019 at 13:17
Google are scum and always have been. It’s a kind of litmus test for whether people are worth talking to or not: do they have the activeness of mind to be able to understand to a noticeable extent what Google is and to criticise it? Or do they think it’s just a noun formed from the normal verb for “to look for stuff”, and “obviously” beyond criticism in the way that one doesn’t criticise the sky or the mountains?

Anyone who slavishly follows Big Pharma propaganda and gets their children vaccinated with every vaccine that is “recommended” and who rushes to get vaccinated against colds and flu every autumn is a complete and utter moron.

It is about time that some of the moon-faced gumbies whose lives have involved so much “activity” on the internet to realise what the internet is all about and to find channels of communication which can be used for genuine contestation.

Reply ↓
Paul Barbara
July 3, 2019 at 14:49
@ N_ July 3, 2019 at 13:17
I’ve just downloaded ‘Brave’ and made it my default browser. It’s Open Source, and though I don’t understand a much about computers, it is supposed to be faster than Google, as well as more privacy-conscious.

Reply ↓
SA
July 3, 2019 at 16:24
N_
Rather sweeping statement
“Anyone who slavishly follows Big Pharma propaganda and gets their children vaccinated with every vaccine that is “recommended” and who rushes to get vaccinated against colds and flu every autumn is a complete and utter moron.”

First vaccines are manufactured and marketed by big pharma after they undergo extensive trials in research laboratories that are not directly under the influence of big pharma so this is not propaganda.
Secondly, I would say that making sweeping statements about vaccinations is not really a sign of a discriminating mind, surely vaccines have saved millions of lives?

Reply ↓
Paul Barbara
July 3, 2019 at 17:27
@ SA July 3, 2019 at 16:24
‘…First vaccines are manufactured and marketed by big pharma after they undergo extensive trials in research laboratories that are not directly under the influence of big pharma so this is not propaganda…’
It appears you haven’t seen my comment to you @ Paul Barbara July 3, 2019 at 16:59
It obviously shows that Big Pharma do not rigorously test their products, and there are many instances where tesing that shows problems is not rectified, but simply covered up.
There is enough material available to make anyone who cares about vaccines seriously question their blanket support for their ‘safety’.

SA
July 3, 2019 at 19:32
Paul
I dare say I know much more about vaccines, medical and scientific research than you do. I am trained to read a medical and research paper. I have myself done research and know the methodology of research and how to deduce the validity of scientific research. I say this not to be patronising but to say to you that it takes a lot of training and effort to go through this process. To rubbish this painstaking research and say that it is all big Pharma propaganda is the most blinkered attitude. Yes big pharma is out to get a lot of money but not by killing us all.

Paul Barbara
July 4, 2019 at 01:02
@ SA July 3, 2019 at 19:32
You may well have more knowledge of these issues than me, but that dows not give you any sort of ‘carte blanche’ right to rubbish comments, without giving your evidence.
I put up evidence showing independent assays had shown Glyphosate in vaccines.
Kempe replies with some waffle abut some jokers saying it is ‘highly unlikely’.
The science in that? The science would be multiple assays showing no Glyphosate -n but of course, that might prove problematic, seeing as it has been found.
Is the independent analyst crooked? So show it – shouldn’t be too hard.

Reply ↓
Kempe
July 3, 2019 at 17:36
It’s not propaganda it’s science.

Reply ↓
SA
July 3, 2019 at 19:38
Paul
I am not going to make any more comments on this thread because I think you treat this as you treat religious belief. You cannot convince a religious believer by evidence or logic because belief does not need logic or evidence. Therefore I will not convince you and you will forever be using non-evidence and statements as proof. Have a good evening.

Reply ↓
Paul Barbara
July 4, 2019 at 01:08
@ SA July 3, 2019 at 19:38
So you won’t be contesting my comments? What can I say, except I agree we seem diametrically opposed on many issues, so frankly I won’t miss you.

Reply ↓
SA
July 4, 2019 at 05:43
[ Mod: Unfortunately this anti-vax conspiracy theory is well off-topic, so the comments will be pruned accordingly. Please make copies of any foregoing comments you wish to retain.

You’re welcome to continue the debate in the discussion forum. ]
—

Paul
Your are upset that I will not be contesting your comments, so I have to be fair to you gone back to look at the ‘evidence’ connecting glyphosate with vaccines. As expected I wasted my time. Look at this for details.

The problem with the original study as discussed in this article are summarised:
1. The results were published in a non-peer reviewed journal which means there was no critical analysis of the data.
2. The techniques used are not suitable for assay of trace contaminants but may be used as a cheap screening test which will then require confirmation by more sophisticated techniques.
3. The laboratory used is a private lab not qualified to be authoritative in these matters.
4. Vaccines go through a rigorous process of testing and no such contamination has been found by other much better qualified labs.

Now you can answer me by saying that of course this is all a big conspiracy theory, as you do, and that all scientists and politicians and everybody is trying to pull the wool over our eyes, or you can argue scientifically if you can.
I have never used glyphosate, not necessarily because it is potentially carcinogenic, because if it is, it is a much weaker carcinogen than other very commonly used agents such as some solvents, let alone cigarettes and alcohol both of which are indulged in by many people who want to ban vaccines and endanger the lives of children.
The reason I dislike Glyphosate is a simple political and economic one. It and GMO foods are being used as a political and economic tools to monopolise food control by corporations to the detriment of small farmers everywhere. It is well documented that there has been a steep rise in suicide by farmers in India related to this introduction of GM foods. Certainly also the environmental damage from glyphosate and GM crops is much more damaging to wildlife and in turn, mankind than the postulated unproven links produced by people unqualified to make these wild allegations

So much for linking Glyphosate with vaccines.’

Where to start?
I wouldn’t trust https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/02/23/vaccines-contain-glyphosate-examining-anti-gmo-claim/
relied on by both SA and Kempe, as far as I could throw them – typical supporters of the Corporations, albeit ‘allegedly’ not funded by them.
So, how honest and scientific are they?
Well, firstly, the MAAM has not been shown to be wrong; admittedly the test they had done was certainly not definitive, but strongly indicates more stringent tests need to be done.
The fact that GLP say more complex testing has not shown any Glyphosate in the vaccines, means little. The more complex tests are very specific – they are aimed to find specific chemicals. So unless they were aimed to find Glyphosate, they wouldn’t show it.
Much like NIST – they claimed no evidence of explosives were found in WTC’s 1,2 and 7. When asked if they had looked for them, they answered no, and said it would be a waste of taxpayers money looking for something that wasn’t there!
Big Pharma may be pulling the same trick.
The MAAM asked specifically that further more accurate tests be done urgently on the vaccines – they did not rely on the far-from-accurate ELISA findings.
‘…While it’s not at all clear that what MAAM, Seneff and Samsel are claiming is true—the techniques they used are not reliable for determining a chemical at those low levels—these claims raise other questions about their hypothesis: How could glyphosate get into a vaccine?…’
‘Whilst it may not be clear that what MAAM, Seneff and Samsel are claiming is true’ is an admission that it equally may be true. The fact that the test is inconclusive does not negate their request to government and regulatory agencies to do the more expensive and definitive tests.Bottom line – the MAAM organised tests have not been proven wrong, and high-tech testd should be urgently done, rather than trying to rubbish the preliminary testing commissioned by MAAM.

A closer look at the science shows that what MAAMs and Samsel describe is a very unlikely scenario. Glyphosate is metabolized by microbiota in soil; it is not metabolized by plants. Bioaccumulation (ever larger volumes of the chemical after repeated applications) has never been demonstrated for glyphosate. It is not retained in animal tissues and is quickly eliminated by animals that encounter it—that includes humans….’

‘…what MAAMs and Samsel describe is a very unlikely scenario…’
How scientific is that? Instead of waffling on, they should be doing high-tech tests to prove the issue one way or the other.

‘…Bioaccumulation (ever larger volumes of the chemical after repeated applications) has never been demonstrated for glyphosate. It is not retained in animal tissues and is quickly eliminated by animals that encounter it—that includes humans….’
Indeed? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749108004053
‘…Abstract
The bioaccumulation potential of glyphosate and the formulation Roundup Ultra, as well as possible effects on biotransformation and antioxidant enzymes in Lumbriculus variegatus were compared by four days exposure to concentrations between 0.05 and 5 mg L−1 pure glyphosate and its formulation. Bioaccumulation was determined using 14C labeled glyphosate. The bioaccumulation factor (BCF) varied between 1.4 and 5.9 for the different concentrations, and was higher than estimated from log Pow. Glyphosate…’

‘…Glyphosate was detected in various organs of slaughtered cows: intestine, liver, muscles, spleen and kidneys, which is old news to the scientific community (the bioaccumulation of glyphosate is known since 1985). Dairy cows absorb about 35-40% of glyphosate from feed, part of which is permanently stored in bones as glyphosate is known chelator of calcium, macro and micro-elements….’

Yet GLP state ‘..’…Bioaccumulation (ever larger volumes of the chemical after repeated applications) has never been demonstrated for glyphosate. It is not retained in animal tissues and is quickly eliminated by animals that encounter it—that includes humans….’
Are you sure you can rely on that quack Corporation supporter?

Paul
You obviously feel very strongly about this. The problem here is that we have to agree whether you believe in scientific methodology or not. The main protagonists of the theory that all of the diseases on the rise in western society are due to glyphosate are Samsel and Seneff, neither of whom have done or have been trained in biological sciences as far as I can see. Their so called studies are rather limited and their conclusions are too far sweeping for the information provided. The supposed amounts of roundup found in their studies in vaccines are infinitesimally small and for the assay used are liable to false positive results. They have not shown beyond doubt that these results represent roundup and if this is to be believed, then they should get more definitive assays carried out. They get around that by asking the FDA to proof that roundup does is not found in vaccines and various commentators have then said that this is tantamount to asking someone to prove that they are innocent.
This excellent review by a reputable team explains how the these scientists used a system of deduction called syllogism to reach their unfounded conclusions.
“The five commentaries by Samsel and Seneff propose a link between exposures to environmental levels of glyphosate and the development of a wide range of chronic diseases (11–15). In each commentary, these authors largely construct their arguments on deductive reasoning based on a logistic structure called syllogism, which is formed when two or more propositions are used in order to generate a conclusion. Although syllogisms can help in deductive reasoning, to ensure that they are used in science in a constructive rather than a misleading way, it is necessary to ensure that the two propositions that lead to the conclusion are firmly evidence-based. We therefore evaluated the Samsel and Seneff commentaries to see whether this was indeed the case.”

Paul, this is looks like a fairly complex issue; you recommended one of Goldacre’s lectures a while ago; have you read his books Bad Science and Bad Pharma yet? They supply something of the grounding you need to make sense of all this – corruption is <b>not</b> confined to one “side” as you seem to think it is. There’s no monopoly on either corruption or good-faith error.

Sure, the anti-vaxxers might also be corrupt. But where the major money is, there you will find the major crooks. In this case, the multi-billion dollar vaccine market.
Here is another link: ‘Fully Vaccinated vs Unvaccinated Part 3’ by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman, Children’s Health Defense https://stuartbramhall.wordpress.com/2019/07/18/fully-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-part-3/
‘…Thimerosal Containing Hepatitis B Vaccines—When Compared to Children Vaccinated Without Thimerosal—Increased Odds of ADHD 1.9X;
Highest Levels of Thimerosal Exposure Increase Autism Risk 11.35X;
Two H1N1-Containing Influenza Vaccines Prior to and During Pregnancy Increases Miscarriage Odds by 7.7X;
H1N1 Influenza Vaccine Increases Risks of Bell’s Palsy (1.34X), Paraesthesia (1.25X) and Inflammatory Bowel Disease (1.25X) in High Risk Patients;
HPV Vaccination Increases Odds of Memory Impairment (1.23X) and Involuntary Movement (1.53X);
Thimerosal Containing Triple HepB Series in the First Six Months of Life Increases Odds of Emotional Disturbances by 2.37X;
HPV Vaccine Increases the Risk of Celiac Disease by 1.56X;
The H1N1 and Seasonal Influenza Vaccines Both Given During Pregnancy Increase Fetal Loss by 11.4% Compared to the Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Only….’
The CDC, FDA, EPA and so forth are crooks, first and foremost, not guardians of the Nation’s health. As in this article, instead of acting on new evidence in defence of the people’s health, they simply block the information. It’s their forte.
Re Goldacre, no I have too much on my plate to read the book, though I’m sure it might add a little to my discernment.
Sorry I didn’t reply sooner – I only just found your comment.
And now the PTB are pushing 5G, despite industry spokesmen admitting their are no studies showing it’s safe, and lots of scientists and doctors etc. saying it most definitely is not.

‘…The main protagonists of the theory that all of the diseases on the rise in western society are due to glyphosate are Samsel and Seneff, neither of whom have done or have been trained in biological sciences as far as I can see…’
I don’t hold that view, but I do hold the view that Glyphosate is poisonous to humans and animals. Along with many vaccines, bee and other insect killing herbicides, increasing electro-smog, nano-particles in the air, water and soil, and so on.
The snake-oil salesmen, in keeping with their slimy murderous trade, speak with fork tongue.
They say Glyphosate attacks the shikamate pathway, which they say humans and animals don’t have, but they are lying, insofar as the incredibly important gut bacteria do use this pathway, and it is disrupted, seriously damaging their health. But do they care? All they care about is being slapped with a multi-million cancer suit, and plenty more waiting in the wings.
Monsanto pulled a crafty one selling out to Bayer – I suspect they knew their dirty game was about to come under serious (I hope) attack, and ‘passed the parcel’. I’m sure the Jerry’s will appreciate it.

Paul
There is a basic problem here in why we cannot agree. And that is that there is that we have to define whom to believe and how to read data. My way of looking at a scientific report is to look at the original published material and to assess the ability of those who wrote the report and then also to see whether this has been published in a reputable peer reviewed journal. Even then there have been glaring errors in the past and reputable journalists have been caught out by hoaxes and unscrupulous scientists (they do exist). So vigilance is advised on both sides. Of course there have been some very high profile scandals concerning medication and there is considerable sharp practice by big pharma, but their aim is to make money and one way of ensuring that this making of money is continued is to produce good products, not products that will kill the customer.

Now the study you send a link is supposed to be from data obtained under the FOA and therefore there is no raw data that can be verified. This is published in the internet by a group and therefore there is no scientific verification. I cannot accept such publications and cannot waste time looking at them because it is simply this, a waste of time. Anybody can make claims and we can spend a lot of time and money trying to disprove them.
In the case of mercury, its use has been discontinued in the developed countries but may still be used in some developing countries. The toxicity of mercury occurs because it is not easily excreted and therefore can accumulate in the body. The major toxicity is that can cause a dermatitis, inflammation of the skin and some neurological toxicity. But there have been studies to look at the specific link with autism and this was not proven. Therefore how the paper you link to got this figure of OD ratio of 11 is a mystery. But notice one way to cheat in statistics is by subgroup analysis, so they have a group called highest level of exposure. No figures are given for the number of cases although I have to admit I did not look at this too closely.
In your original post you were talking about presence of Roundup in vaccines, and the authors allege, using an ELIZA assay method that they detected Roundup in vaccines at levels of one part per billion. This is really weird because this assumes an enormous accuracy in a test that is generally not used to detect trace amounts such as these.

Unfortunately: ‘The Medical Journals’ Sell-Out — Getting Paid to Play’:https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/the-medical-journals-sell-out- getting-paid-to-play/
Re Roundup, they knew the test was not reliable for such amounts, but used it to demand full spectrum tests – fair enough, I should say, given the health stakes of children.
You seem to give the benefit of the doubt to Big Pharma, I to the parents.
‘…The toxicity of mercury occurs because it is not easily excreted and therefore can accumulate in the body. The major toxicity is that can cause a dermatitis, inflammation of the skin and some neurological toxicity. ..’
You seem to be very blase about the ‘dangers’ of mercury (and it has not been removed from all vaccines in the West – the flu jab, for example), but not as bad, admittedly, as the WHO!!
I was really taken aback when I just read: ‘…Methylmercury is very different to ethylmercury. Ethylmercury is used as a preservative in some vaccines and does not pose a health risk…’ on an official WHO website:https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mercury-and-health
World HEALTH Organisation?? Is their statement on the safety of ethylmercury based on science?
‘…Of course there have been some very high profile scandals concerning medication and there is considerable sharp practice by big pharma, but their aim is to make money and one way of ensuring that this making of money is continued is to produce good products, not products that will kill the customer…’
Sure, they don’t want to kill the customer, but they don’t want to cure him either. They want him as a recurring source of profit. I believe the Ancient Chinese had a system where people paid the doctor when they were well, and ceased when sick, so the doctor’s self-interest meant he would try to keep them well, thus getting income. Present day ghouls (obviously not all) aim to keep as many people sick and dependent as possible.

Further to my comment above, I’ve done some more searching, and Voila!:
‘Vaccine Ethylmercury vs. Methylmercury’: http://whale.to/vaccines/ethyl_vs_methyl.html
‘World Mercury Project Thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative, is still in 48 million U.S. flu vaccines each year, tetanus toxoid, meningococcal vaccines and, in massive doses, in the pediatric vaccines given to 100 million children across the developing world. A Centers for Disease Control (CDC) review published last month found that the ethylmercury in thimerosal is as profoundly neurotoxic as the heavily regulated methylmercury in fish.

”I had no clue about the pivotal role they both had played in deceiving the public about thimerosal safety. Both of them spoke to me willingly. Offit expressed admiration for my father, which is an effective way to butter me up. I asked them both the obvious question: “Why do we advise pregnant women to steer clear of fish because of neurotoxic mercury and yet inject much larger doses of mercury into pregnant women and babies?” They both repeated to me the thread worn industry canard that the “ethyl mercury in vaccines is not as dangerous as the methyl mercury in fish” which everyone admits is highly neurotoxic. Offit explained to me that ethyl mercury wasn’t toxic because it leaves the human body so quickly.
By then, I’d read Burbacher’s monkey studies which confirmed Offit’s assertion that the ethyl mercury from vaccines rapidly left the blood. But, Burbacher had shown the ethyl mercury was not being excreted from the body as Offit implied during our telephone conversation. Instead, it was going directly into the brain, where it rapidly metabolized into highly toxic inorganic mercury, and then lodged there, creating inflammation and brain damage. Burbacher had shown that inorganic mercury remains in the brain for years. Instead of being evidence of its safety, as Offit represented, ethyl mercury’s penchant for disappearing quickly from the blood was testimony to its extreme peril; it was disappearing due to the ease with which it crossed the blood-brain barrier! Ethyl mercury used in vaccines was both far more persistent and far more toxic than the methyl mercury found in fish. The Guzzi study, in 2012, showed the ethyl mercury was 50 times as toxic to cells. When I mentioned the Burbacher study to Stratton and Offit, they both went silent. It was obvious that they were aware of the study. THEY BOTH KNEW that science had refuted what they were telling me. They were accustomed to talking to journalists who seem to have an allergy to reading science and were content to parrot their reassurances.” [2016 Dec] Mercury, Vaccines and the CDC’s Worst Nightmare By Rita Shreffler…’

Please read the full article, it really should shake your confidence in your sources.

Two pivotal events led from blind belief to rationality: the renaissance and the enlightenment. Science is evidence based and therefore blind belief will not be an argument to rationally advance any human endeavor

That is hardly relevant to the latest information I provided – that the WHO, CDC and OFFIT were all proven wrong in stating ethylmercury was harmless as it was rapidly excreted (you seem to accept it is not, but still reckon ethylmercury is harmless). It was just rapidly lost from the blood stream, because it lodged in the brain!).Are these two statements compatible:
‘…Methylmercury is very different to ethylmercury. Ethylmercury is used as a preservative in some vaccines and does not pose a health risk…’ ( official WHO website).
‘Burbacher had shown the ethyl mercury was not being excreted from the body as Offit implied during our telephone conversation. Instead, it was going directly into the brain, where it rapidly metabolized into highly toxic inorganic mercury, and then lodged there, creating inflammation and brain damage.’
Isn’t there one hell of a difference between mercury getting excreted from the body, or stored in the brain?
Surely this is your sort of science talk.

Paul
This could go on and on as did the 911 blog controversy. Wikipedia has a very good summary and here is an important paragraph:

Scientific consensus
In 2001 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health asked the U.S. National Academy of Science’s (NAS) Institute of Medicine to establish an independent expert committee to review hypotheses about existing and emerging immunization safety concerns. This initial report found that based on indirect and incomplete evidence available at the time, there was inadequate evidence to accept or reject a thiomersal-autism link, though it was biologically plausible.[54]
Since this report was released, several independent reviews have examined the body of published research for a possible thiomersal-autism link by examining the theoretical mechanisms of thiomersal causing harm and by reviewing the in vitro, animal, and population studies that have been published. These reviews determined that no evidence exists to establish thiomersal as the cause of autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders.[6][7][34][36]
The scientific consensus on the subject is reflected in a follow up report that was subsequently published in 2004 by the Institute of Medicine, which took into account new data that had been published since the 2001 report. The committee noted, in response to those who cite in vitro or animal models as evidence for the link between autism and thiomersal:
“However, the experiments showing effects of thimerosal on biochemical pathways in cell culture systems and showing abnormalities in the immune system or metal metabolism in people with autism are provocative; the autism research community should consider the appropriate composition of the autism research portfolio with some of these new findings in mind. However, these experiments do not provide evidence of a relationship between vaccines or thimerosal and autism. In the absence of experimental or human evidence that vaccination (either the MMR vaccine or the preservative thimerosal) affects metabolic, developmental, immune, or other physiological or molecular mechanisms that are causally related to the development of autism, the committee concludes that the hypotheses generated to date are theoretical only.”[7]
The committee concludes:
“Thus, based on this body of evidence, the committee concludes that the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism.”[7] [bold in original]
Further evidence of the scientific consensus includes the rejection of a causal link between thiomersal and autism by multiple national and international scientific and medical bodies including the American Medical Association,[55] the American Academy of Pediatrics,[56] the American College of Medical Toxicology,[57] the Canadian Paediatric Society,[58] the U.S. National Academy of Sciences,[7] the Food and Drug Administration,[9] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,[10] the World Health Organization,[8] the Public Health Agency of Canada,[59] and the European Medicines Agency.[60]
A 2011 journal article reflects this point of view and described the vaccine-autism connection as “the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years”.[19]
Consequences

The problem is that putting people off vaccinating all children has got dangerous consequences as there has been a rise of diseases that have almost been eradicated such as measles and believe me measles is a very unpleasant disease for children to have.
Like with many things in life you have to take facts and decide for yourself if the risk is acceptable. Every time you smoke that cigarette (if you are a smoker) or pick that drink you will face a choice of risk versus benefit. This can also be extended to your bacon sandwich, crossing the road or going canoeing. We need utter safety we stay in a bubble at home and that is what these odd ratios are about.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_and_vaccines
Anyway hope you have a good weekend and enjoy yourself.

Wikepedia serves the PTB. You have ignored my point about the WHO and Co. stating ethylmercury is safe because it is excreted from the body, whereas it is certainly excreted from the blood, but is retained in the brain.
Do you not wish to concede this point?
This does not need to go on and on. Is Ethylmercury a safe substance to inject into human beings, including tiny babies, OR IS IT NOT?

@ SA July 21, 2019 at 14:29
The problem is extremely simple – no one, or Corporation, can be trusted to police itself.
‘Big Pharma’s Role in Clinical Trials.
Dhttps://www.drugwatch.com/featured/clinical-trials-and-hidden-data/ata from clinical trials are important in approving new medicines and discovering new treatments. But Big Pharma funds and runs most clinical trials. According to critics, this could allow drug companies to fake study results or hide dangerous side effects to get their drug approved or increase sales.
‘Data from clinical trials are important in approving new medicines and discovering new treatments. But Big Pharma funds and runs most clinical trials. According to critics, this could allow drug companies to fake study results or hide dangerous side effects to get their drug approved or increase sales….’

‘..Before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves a prescription drug, it must first go through a series of clinical trials. Data obtained from these trials should ensure the safety and effectiveness of drugs before they make it into the hands of patients.
Each year, the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) budget provides less money to fund clinical trials. Because of this, Big Pharma pays for and runs the majority of these trials.

It then provides data to the FDA for drug approvals and safety reviews after the drug hits the market. While this practice may help get more drugs approved and allow more treatments to reach patients sooner, it may also lead to unknown risks.

According to critics and consumer watchdogs, Big Pharma’s influence over clinical trials could allow drug companies to focus on the benefits of a drug and downplay the risks for the sake of profit. This biased information could also influence doctors to prescribe a drug without knowing all the risks.

How Big Pharma Influences Trial Results
It can cost billions to develop a new drug, and drug manufacturers want a return on their investment. For example, studies indicated that cost estimates of bringing a new drug to the market can start at approximately $160 million and end up as high as $2 billion.

Brand-name drugs that are still under patent make the most money for drug companies. In addition, only about 34 percent of these trials make it to the final phase to testing, according to a 2014 study by Michael Hay and colleagues published in Nature Biotechnology. This puts more pressure on drug companies to have successful clinical trials.

To this end, Big Pharma may influence clinical trials in a number of ways, including funding the trials, designing the trials and handpicking trial results. These practices could skew trial results in favor of drug companies and put patients at risk.

“Clinical trials for pharmaceuticals are conducted and funded by the industry.”

Dr. Michael A. Carome
For example, the New England Journal of Medicine — one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world — published 73 studies of new drugs. Of those studies, a pharmaceutical company funded 60, 50 had drug-company employees among the authors and 37 lead researchers had accepted money from a drug company, according to a review conducted by the Washington Post.

This means drug companies greatly influence the majority of medical information provided to the public.

Unreliable clinical trials resulting from the possibility for bias due to Big Pharma influence is an ongoing issue because “clinical trials for pharmaceuticals are conducted and funded by the industry,” Dr. Michael A. Carome, director of the Health Research Group of Public Citizens in Washington, D.C., told Drugwatch……..’

I don’t trust someone just because they have ‘Dr.’ in front of their name, any more than I trust someone because they have M.P. after it, or Congressman before it, when they have big spoils to protect.

No. Nature provides chemical elements and compounds, but it has not provided a book that says “willow bark will ease a headache, but foxglove causes heart seizure”. Such facts have been learned by trial and error, or in other words, experiment ie. science, albeit often informal.

Whether a thing is “natural or not” is no guide to its efficacy, nor to its safety. Some of the most toxic substances are made by insects and arachnids. Many supposedly effective pharmaceuticals turn out to do nothing at all, once the trials hidden by the manufacturers have been revealed.

– – – – – –
The other matters on this page are a thimbleful of details cherry-picked from an ocean of data, and consequently this is not an appropriate forum to discuss them. The proper place is the scientific literature, where those with education and experience in analysis can pull claims apart and discuss them. Please read Bad ScienceandBad Pharma to obtain a grounding in the skills and methodology required. Until you do, you are inadvertently adding to the vast clouds of fog around medicine, much of which is promoted deliberately to obscure and confuse.

And Paul, when considering hidden agendas, always consider both sides of the original proposition. Who stands to gain by the elimination of vaccination programmes if vaccines are effective? Are there not vast profits to be made if preventable diseases are not prevented?

The lancet study was made up to divert attention from real cause autism which is possibly anti biotics. Paula cannot speak up being silenced. Her son is child ,4. Someone needs to investigate this. She was told there was no girl in study yet is from same doctor surgery but no one will let her know who it is.

Paula tried to expose for 7 years but is blocked. She went to the royal free for tests to find out why son had gone autistic but was coaxed. That was 97 she did lot research into natural treatment like diet and probiotics and Paul shattock visited her after this him and Wakefield started setting up research and study

Paula gets so many problems with mobiles and internet and almost impossible to expose. Had files put on her computer that were locked in 2012 which was very scary she has tried main stream papers but no luck. Is it financial links to pharmecutimals. Families need to know the truth
Gov knows cause autism
All lancet parents need to be aware who each other are
Are they all genuine. All those in controversy on same side. Paula is from north shields and a jabs centre was set up there not long after Paul shattock visited her yet no others except main group.

Paula met Brian deer journalist in 2014 she had told Paul shattock she was determined to find child 8 parents from Whitley bay so he suggested Brian yet there meant to be on different sides controversy the address Brian give Paula in Whitley bay was probably false. She left letters yet no replies. She is diverted and blocked every time she tries to do some thing to expose this. There is no freedom of speech. There is latest scandel of autistic people being abused in NHS hospitals. All this is to keep elite rich. Its all about making money. Scientific research is used to suit them in some cases and they do not care about families.

– The lancet study was made up to divert attention from real cause autism

If that is so, it was a spectacularly weak attempt. Wakefield’s paper was merely a “case series” ie. the equivalent in the scientific literature of a hunch, and it studied only twelve children, and only eight of them were autistic.

The scientific search for the cause of autism can be followed in the scientific literature. The cause is not documented there, so it cannot be known to governments. In any case, politicians ignore and dismiss science far more often than heeding it, eg. the sacking of Alvin Weinberg (nuclear power), the sacking of Professor Nutt (assessment of the dangers of illegal drugs), the dismissal of climate change and environmental degradation for thirty years etc. etc.

Paula may be able to find help with computers from her local Linux User Group.

This is a very important article, but with its repeated use of “may” and “could” it seriously understates the case. It’s not “according to critics”; investigations and documents demanded by courts have shown repeatedly that Big Pharma does “fake study results or hide dangerous side effects to get their drug approved or increase sales”, and that this does “lead to unknown risks”.

– “Big Pharma maydoes influence clinical trials in a number of ways, including funding the trials, designing the trials and handpicking trial results. These practices coulddo skew trial results in favor of drug companies and put patients at risk.”

@ Clark July 27, 2019 at 16:04
‘No, SA answered you. It isn’t a binary choice, it’s a risk versus benefit assessment.’
I made a long argument yesterday showing that he had not answered my comment, but for some reason the mods junked it.—

[ Mod: I’ve checked the deletion list and examined the activity logs, and I can see no deletion event in the last 48 hours for a reply with your username (or indeed anything on this thread). Maybe the reply wasn’t received? Sometimes a connection glitch can block the POST action, and sometimes replies can be automatically sent to the spam list – though I checked that too and didn’t notice your name! So unless you posted incomprehensible rubbish under a pseudonym, I don’t think it’s fair to say that “the mods junked it”. ]

—

So may I refer you to my comment above, @ Paul Barbara July 19, 2019 at 23:28.
To make a risk/benefit analysis, you need all or as much as possible information. Big Pharma will not give you that opportunity.
As is stated in my comment, and in the two articles. WHO openly state on one of their sites, after going on about the hazards of mercury, states that: ‘Methylmercury is very different to ethylmercury. Ethylmercury is used as a preservative in some vaccines and does not pose a health risk. ‘https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mercury-and-health
This is probably based on the fallacious assumption that because it rapidly leaves the blood, it therefore goes out of the body. WRONG (as demonstrated with links above).
Yet the false information still sits on the WHO site (they have previously been very credibly accussed of cooperating with the likes of Bill Gates and other ‘human culling’ organisations, to assist spreading a vaccine among Third Country women which while ostensibly was for one thing (Tetanus, I believe), also sterilised them). The WHO, as the Western Governments ,UN and OPCW have all been compromised.

Mods, I apologies for saying you ‘junked’ my comment, as you have explained you didn’t.
However, it somehow disappeared, possibly by some accidental action of my own.
I took quite a while formulating it, but ‘C’est la vie’.
Thanks for explaining the situation.

Paul, it’s clear that you haven’t read even Bad Science, let alone Bad Pharma; it is simply impossible to have a meaningful conversation about this sort of subject until you have at least some of the necessary tools.

The assessment of the effects of ethyl and methyl mercury in a system as complex as a living mammal is a hugely complex and technical subject, and just one of a myriad similar assessments; I know for certain that it is way beyond my technical experience, yet you rush in where angels fear to tread. You then attempt to support these claims with sweeping assertions such as “Big Pharma will not give you that opportunity” and “the WHO […] have previously been very credibly accussed of cooperating with the likes of Bill Gates and other ‘human culling’ organisations, to assist spreading a vaccine among Third Country women which […] also sterilised them”. These concern completely the opposite end of the pyramid of human activity, the pinnacle as opposed to the base.

An ocean of highly complex structure with effectively infinite details lie between these two types of assessment and it cannot be ignored; the two simply do not belong together in the same comment. I’m sorry Paul, but this is conspiracy theorists’ type of thinking, like trying to assess momentum transfer in the collapses of the Twin Towers on the basis of whether I personally am Jewish or not.

– “The WHO, as the Western Governments ,UN and OPCW have all been compromised.”

This is true, but “compromised” does not mean “puppet”, and the details are all-important. You need to be campaigning for transparency (as Ben Goldacre is) rather than against vaccines. It’s as if you’re campaigning against looking and listening when crossing a road because that’s what governments recommend.

I take it you won’t read Goldacre because “he could be one of the bad guys” and thus might corrupt your thinking?

@ Clark July 26, 2019 at 10:34
Do you believe, or at least are you aware, that certain very powerful ‘people’ have seriously considered culling the human population by 85 – 95%? And ‘dodgy mandatory vaccines’ would be a handy adjunct to wars, induced famines and artificial Pandemics?

Paul, I think you would be surprised at just how much we agree about. Politically and ethically we share very similar positions; we both want the best for the vast majority ie. the ordinary people, and the natural world upon which we are all dependent. We both believe that the method of achieving this is for truth to be told and deception to be exposed.

I am aware of that theory. A very effective way of reducing the human population would be to withhold preventative treatments such as vaccines, which have prevented literally millions of deaths. As an additional “bonus”, fortunes could be made from treating cases that would never have arisen.

In some ways I am even more suspicious than you. The “depopulation theory” was formulated by critics of a document called Limits to Growth by the Club of Rome, and the resulting UN initiative Agenda 21. Limits to Growth set out a message that big corporations wanted to discredit, that infinite economic growth on a finite planet was a recipe for mass extinction, including possibly human extinction. The UN’s Agenda 21 was an early sustainability initiative, and as such posed a major threat to corporate monetary profit. My suspicion, which I think you should consider, is that the “depopulation theory” benefited from corporate backing (hidden behind front organisations, of course, just as climate science denial has been). The UN is far from perfect, but it does hold governments and hence corporations to some (very inadequate) degree of accountability by being the authority of International Law.

The real situation is actually far more sinister; the vast majority of ordinary people are effectively being farmed for their labour. While a desire to cull the majority may be a fantasy of some less intelligent members of “the elite”, their more realistic brethren fully understand that their elite status derives entirely from the exploitation of the vast masses ‘beneath’ them. You only have to attempt to pay your electricity bill to discover how useless robots and software systems are when presented with the most trivial of complications; the notion that robots could replace human intelligence is beyond folly; we may be “made in God’s image”, but making in God’s image is clearly beyond our abilities. The elite need the masses, indeed, without the masses the very concept of elite status is meaningless.

Initially the $12.5 billion in revenue from the GILD cure was welcomed. However, the problem with a cure, from an investment perspective, is that it cures people. The former Hep C patients no longer needed any treatment, and revenues fell off a cliff as more and more people didn’t require medication. What was even worse were the rapidly diminishing numbers of people spreading infection, creating fewer and fewer new customers.

The global investment firm Goldman Sachs are one of the world’s leading investors in the pharmaceutical industry. They were concerned about the potentially catastrophic financial effects of curing people. They saw that advances in medical science threatened to make people well and thus reduce their return on investment (ROI.) In 2018 they issued their report The Genome Revolution. In it they questioned if curing disease was sustainable from a business model perspective. Their analyst’s conclusions make horrifying reading.

The potential to deliver ‘one shot cures’ is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies …

GILD is a case in point, where the success of its hepatitis C franchise has gradually exhausted the available pool of treatable patients …

In the case of infectious diseases such as hepatitis C, curing existing patients also decreases the number of carriers able to transmit the virus to new patients, thus the incident pool also declines … Where an incident pool remains stable (eg, in cancer) the potential for a cure poses less risk to the sustainability of a franchise….’

How much evidence is required before the penny drops?
I was present in court for one day during the trial of David Noakes, but didn’t go again because of my hearing problems, and the very low sound level of the proceedings.

Paul, I think you should recognise and question your own assumption that those who don’t accept your opinions about vaccines etc. are all brainwashed dupes. Yes, there have been incidents in which elements of the pharmaceutical establishment have attempted to discredit researchers who have discovered cures. For instance, a major effort was directed against one of the two doctors who demonstrated that some stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria called helicobacter pylori and could therefore be cured with cheap, off-patent antibiotics, thus depriving the pharmaceutical industry of a steady income stream from anti-acid ulcer treatments. It does not follow that vaccines are a scam.

I think you should also note that the quote in your comment above is advocating for a gene therapy, directly contradicting your own earlier position about “natural” treatments being more trustworthy.

I know nothing of the GILD case and I expect it would take me several weeks to research it, but thanks to Ben Goldacre’s two books, I’d have some idea of how to research it.

@ Clark August 13, 2019 at 09:00
You largely agree with my position re Big Pharma’s lack of interest in curing, and desire to rather have the walking-dead coming back for repeat prescriptions (more lovely loot).
I don’t know if you read the GcMAF article about that cancer cure, which is avoided like the plague by Big Pharma, who use their tremendous clout to lean on regulatory and enforcement agencies to come down like a ton of bricks on doctors or others who try to use and distribute it.
Considering it’s phenomenal record in cases everyone has totally given up on, don’t you believe this is unconscionable?
And re one an antacid scam not proving vaccines are a scam, it all points to the possibility that vaccines COULD be, given the lack of honesty, morality and transparency.
My position is the possibility is there, and because of my knowledge of their previous criminality, I accept the worst interpretation given by Big Pharma’s detractors.
You seem to agree with me that Big Pharma are unprincipled, but give them the benefit of the doubt re vaccines.
Would you agree?

– You seem to agree with me that Big Pharma are unprincipled, but give them the benefit of the doubt re vaccines. Would you agree?

Yes and no, respectively.

More specifically, the pharmaceutical companies are the same as other companies; their primary legal duty is to maximise returns to their shareholders. They could probably do that better by not manufacturing vaccines at all. Mostly it is governments that mandate vaccination programmes, not pharmaceutical companies.

Paul, this whole issue is a bit more complicated than the simple “us versus them” format you continually try to cobble it into. Why won’t you read Goldacre? Do you even know why you won’t?

@ Clark August 13, 2019 at 15:39
If you saw the list of books I have to read, and the other things I have to do, and you knew how difficult it is to do anything with my lack of energy and almost constant tiredness, you would stop asking me to read Goldacre.
The Pharma Companies do indeed have an obligation to their shareholders, but their primary obligation should be to the safety of the products they produce for use by patients. This clearly is not the case, and most of the various governments are quite happy with that.
Sure, governments mandate the vaccines and drug regulations, but at the behest of the Big Pharma lobbyists. Surely that is obvious.

Again, surely this screams out to the heavens:http://whale.to/c/trace_amounts.html
‘…Take Another Look : An Interview with ‘Trace Amounts’ co-director Shiloh Levine I learned that Ethylmercury is not the “safe mercury,” which a lot of people like to spout in the media. It is actually more dangerous than Methylmercury, which is the type of mercury found in fish. And it gets trapped in the brain twice as much as Methylmercury and that’s where the neurological problems are….Two parts per billion is the amount of allowable mercury in our drinking water. Two hundred parts per billion is considered toxic waste. Fifty-thousand parts per billion is the amount of mercury in Thimerosal at twenty-five micrograms. In a flu shot, that amount is fifty thousand parts per billion, which is twenty-five thousand times more than the allowable amount in drinking water. You’re injecting toxic waste into babies and pregnant mothers, and that’s not okay…..’

You are justifying your own ignorance. I remind you that the opinions you are promoting have life-or-death consequences. The books I recommend are full of intellectual tools. If you are unwilling to learn to use those tools, you should refrain from promoting potentially lethal opinions.

– “The Pharma Companies […] primary obligation should be to the safety of the products they produce”

That would be some system other than capitalism. Yet the major promoters of anti-vax literature are the US Right. Que pasa?

– “governments mandate the vaccines and drug regulations, but at the behest of the Big Pharma lobbyists”

It really isn’t as simple as that; there is public research too. Really, either read the books I am recommending, which will give you a grounding at least, or admit to yourself that you don’t know enough to take a side.

Incidentally, I was with Craig all last week and we discussed many things. One thing he mentioned was that of all the conspiracy theories, it’s the anti-vax ones that he most objects to. Yet his latest heart specialist has taken him off many medications, replacing all of them with one of the oldest, derived from foxglove extract. By odd coincidence I mentioned foxglove’s cardiac effects earlier in this thread. Foxglove extract slows the heart, this being the treatment that Craig is receiving, but too much will cause it to stop completely, which is the effect I mentioned. Natural or not? Good or bad? Maybe these aren’t quite the right questions.